To the Non Believers.

[Wotan]

The fact that you seem to believe that the atheist/agnostics are not attempting to convince the christians that they are wrong and should turn against their God and believe as do the atheist/agnostics, that my friend goes a bit too far into sounding moronic to really be taken seriously. Still funny though.

I think most of us (certainly me) don't give a R*A* WHAT you believe - seriously. If you want to run your one and only life by the rules of some ancient superstition - go for it. We could care less.

BUT

You are not content with that.

WHY can't you just follow the 11th commandment?

 

[Archer]

Now it's for you to show this.

If you show me yours I will show you mine

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What a lot of whining .

Boo hoo poor persecuted beleivers.

As if they'd have it any other way.

 

[S-word]

I think most of us (certainly me) don't give a R*A* WHAT you believe - seriously. If you want to run your one and only life by the rules of some ancient superstition - go for it. We could care less.

BUT

You are not content with that.

WHY can't you just follow the 11th commandment?

Quote: Wotan; I think most of US (certainly me) don't give a R*A* WHAT you believe - seriously.

S-words Response; No, no, no, by all means, don’t you give all them R* A’s* away, I dare say that you Agnostics love eating them, we are talking about Ripe Apples aren’t we?

Quote: Wotan; If you want to run your one and only life by the rules of some ancient superstition - go for it. WE could care less.

S-words Response; And why should you care how I live the eternal life that has been given to me by my God “Who I Am”? It’s got nothing to do with godless people such as yourself.

The fact that you use words such as US and WE, shows that you either believe that you are royalty and are using the royal “WE and US,” or else you somehow believe that you have the right to speak on other peoples behalf. Look to your own short and temporary life, that you, the mind, which will survive after the death of your body believes is all you can expect, young fellow.

Quote: Wotan; BUT
You are not content with that.
WHY can't you just follow the 11th commandment?

S-words Response; Because I follow the 12th commandment, which says “Thou shalt not follow the 11th commandment,” that’s why.

 

[Magic Man]

No the attack comes when evidence is presented and nothing other than BS is presented as a response.

EDIT: I have seen that go both ways TBH.

I'm sorry, you'd have to be specific. If we're talking about evidence for God or for creationism, then it's not BS in response. It's pointing out that it's not evidence. If you're referring to something else, you'd have to specify.

 

[YmirGF]

If you follow most threads they are pretty much a setup for the believer to fail.

Greetings Archer,

Welcome to RF. Part of the reason that the arguments of the believers consistently fail is because they are most often founded in relatively baseless supposition. When folks get called on this, things tend to go badly for them.

Why the hell would want you to present evidence of God?

Beats me. Many here do hold to the amusing notion that their not so subtle use of "logic" proves the existence of god. Fortunately, not too many are taken in by their vapid thinking.

Who cares about Jesus being the son of God?

Personally, I have no difficulty with the concept whatsoever although I am not the following kind. The simple fact is that many must pigeonhole "god" and it would seem that the Joyous Nazarene is an easy target for their affections.

Look how many play out. There is really no need to ask some of these questions if you know what you accept as an answer unless you are truly looking for what others believe.

I am not so much interested in what they believe. That means relatively little to me. I am FAR more curious WHY they believe the things they believe. Like, what went wrong with them during their formative years that they need such goalposts in their lives?

If one is looking for such then one need not tell the person replying to the thread they are wrong and attempt to destroy their faith.

You must try to appreciate that if your so-called "faith" can be so easily destroyed then you were already on pretty thin ice to begin with. Personally, though I find it uncomfortable at times when people zero in on something I have written, I do love a challenge because that helps me grow. My bizarre thinking is that if I can grow through the experience then perhaps the odd reader might just twig a notch or two as well. In those terms, my views are quite unassailable, but that doesn't mean that folks cant get me to clarify my own concepts, both to myself and to others. It's all good, imo. The old adage applies. If you can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[Mister_T]

***MOD POST***

Hey folks, let's turn down the heat on some of the posts in here.

Thanks!​

 

[dogsgod]

You don't know what heat is and you won't ever know until you find yourself roasting in the everlasting lake of fire that is Hell, and then it will be too late.

 

[Autodidact]

If you follow most threads they are pretty much a setup for the believer to fail.

Maybe the believers have lousy arguments.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you have two examples, good and bad, both claiming to be doing it in the name of their religion. Why on earth did you choose the bad and start talking about the religion as if it is evil.

I think this is a valid point. Religion is both good and bad. My answer is that when arguing against religion, I'm going to point out the bad. Also religion has excellent PR, and does a fine job of pointing out, even exaggerating, its own good points.

I guess a more fair way to judge religions would be to view it's teachings. If there is a scripture, revise it. If there is any kind of reference, check it. But to go ahead and decide that a certain religion is evil, i don't think that's a fair way to judge anything.

Both are important. Obviously, there is a relationship between a religion's teachings and the actions of its adherents. If the qur'an did not contain verses advocating violence against non-believers, especially Christians and Jews, there would not be so many of its adherents trying to kill non-Muslims. If the qur'an did not advocate jihad, there would not be so many Muslims practicing jihad.

However, one problem is that it is not at all clear what a religion's teachings are. No two Muslims (or Christians or Jews) agree about what their religion's teachings are. You may be about to explain that the qur'an does not call for killing innocent Jews, while other Muslims will say that according to the qur'an, there is no such thing.

Finally, while the teaching cause the behavior, it is the actual people who strap explosives to themselves and blow up buses, and that is the problem.

I know you won't admit that this method is mistaken, since you already started to try and provoke me.

I would say that this method is not what debating is all about, and, as I keep saying, this is a debate forum.

 

[Autodidact]

Archer:
Could you give us some examples of these attack threads you're decrying?

 

[Badran]

I think this is a valid point. Religion is both good and bad. My answer is that when arguing against religion, I'm going to point out the bad. Also religion has excellent PR, and does a fine job of pointing out, even exaggerating, its own good points. Both are important. Obviously, there is a relationship between a religion's teachings and the actions of its adherents. If the qur'an did not contain verses advocating violence against non-believers, especially Christians and Jews, there would not be so many of its adherents trying to kill non-Muslims. If the qur'an did not advocate jihad, there would not be so many Muslims practicing jihad.

However, one problem is that it is not at all clear what a religion's teachings are. No two Muslims (or Christians or Jews) agree about what their religion's teachings are. You may be about to explain that the qur'an does not call for killing innocent Jews, while other Muslims will say that according to the qur'an, there is no such thing.

Finally, while the teaching cause the behavior, it is the actual people who strap explosives to themselves and blow up buses, and that is the problem.

I agree with almost everything you said. Here is my point though, If you are going to be neutral, and say that it is not obvious what Islam says, since there is some who use it well, and some who use it badly, i think a person should do the following, When a Muslim does good, applaud him and not the religion, when a person does bad, blame him and not the religion.

If you are going to say that the religion is vague and it is not obvious what it says, then don't blame it nor applaud it, since obviously there are different outcomes of using it. Blame and applaud the people using it.

A final point, it's not an argument, but just something i want to tell you, is that those who claim certain bad actions are required by the Quran, happen to be evil or ignorant people, always, and it's obvious to anyone who wants to look at Islam with a neutral outlook, that it is does not say what those people claim it says. Nothing in the Quran is like they interpet it, and it's obvious for anyone who is not delusional or using it as a tool to oppress or hurt others. I know of course you won't take my word for it, so that's why i clarified that this is not an argument.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Also religion has excellent PR, and does a fine job of pointing out, even exaggerating, its own good points.

Yes they do; those evangelists on TV make religion seem like the best thing ever. For only 10% of everything in your bank account.

Obviously, there is a relationship between a religion's teachings and the actions of its adherents. If the qur'an did not contain verses advocating violence against non-believers, especially Christians and Jews, there would not be so many of its adherents trying to kill non-Muslims. If the qur'an did not advocate jihad, there would not be so many Muslims practicing jihad.

Good point, but Muslim extremists really take jihad out of context. When the Qur'an talks about jihad it doesn't necessarily mean to go out and kill all the infidels. Jihad can refer to anything that the Muslim community is striving for together; at least that was the way it was explained to me.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree with almost everything you said. Here is my point though, If you are going to be neutral, and say that it is not obvious what Islam says, since there is some who use it well, and some who use it badly, i think a person should do the following, When a Muslim does good, applaud him and not the religion, when a person does bad, blame him and not the religion.

If you are going to say that the religion is vague and it is not obvious what it says, then don't blame it nor applaud it, since obviously there are different outcomes of using it. Blame and applaud the people using it.

I'm a very empirical person. I believe in empiricism because it works. I believe we can use empirical methods to look around us and learn about reality. So we can compare Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists as a way to learn something about Islam, Christianity, etc. We see that in Muslim countries, there is a tendency to repress women's rights, use violence against those who disagree (including other Muslims), riot over other people's free speech, kill women for exercising their human rights, mutilate girl children, blow up innocent civilians, spread anti-scientific superstition, etc. etc. Furthermore, when they do these things, they tell you in no uncertain terms why they do it--it's because of their religion. They believe it's their religious duty, and that's why they do it. In today's world, religion is often a real, serious problem.

In particular, I am very worried about the spread of Islam and its effect on the world's people. It's bad for Muslims and bad for non-Muslims. It spreads ignorance, barbarism, repression and violence. Wherever Muslims go, we see honor killings, subway bombings, and on and on. This is not speculative, and it's important for us to understand it and figure out how to combat. Islam, a specific, virulent form of Islam, is responsible. Until we understand that, we cannot effectively combat it.

A final point, it's not an argument, but just something i want to tell you, is that those who claim certain bad actions are required by the Quran, happen to be evil or ignorant people, always, and it's obvious to anyone who wants to look at Islam with a neutral outlook, that it is does not say what those people claim it says. Nothing in the Quran is like they interpet it, and it's obvious for anyone who is not delusional or using it as a tool to oppress or hurt others. I know of course you won't take my word for it, so that's why i clarified that this is not an argument.

Remember our thread on the poor Iranian lesbian? Every Muslim in the thread agrees that she should be punished. The only question was: how severely. Here's a person living her life, not hurting anyone, loving whom she loves, and to a man, Muslims think it's O.K. to punish her. Sorry, that's evil, and I'm going to fight it.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes they do; those evangelists on TV make religion seem like the best thing ever. For only 10% of everything in your bank account.



Good point, but Muslim extremists really take jihad out of context. When the Qur'an talks about jihad it doesn't necessarily mean to go out and kill all the infidels. Jihad can refer to anything that the Muslim community is striving for together; at least that was the way it was explained to me.

Have you read the qur'an? I admit it's hard to slog through tripe like that, but I think you'll be shocked at the attitude toward Jews and other infidels in the qur'an, as well as the many references to violence, raiding, war, fighting and even how to distribute the spoils of war.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Have you read the qur'an? I admit it's hard to slog through tripe like that, but I think you'll be shocked at the attitude toward Jews and other infidels in the qur'an, as well as the many references to violence, raiding, war, fighting and even how to distribute the spoils of war.

I've read the Qur'an and I'm not disagreeing with you; let me make that clear. I think there is no room for a lot of Muslim practices in a civilized world. I was just pointing out that the word "jihad" has been demonized by Western culture; it doesn't always mean "killing in the name of Allah".

 

[Autodidact]

I've read the Qur'an and I'm not disagreeing with you; let me make that clear. I think there is no room for a lot of Muslim practices in a civilized world. I was just pointing out that the word "jihad" has been demonized by Western culture; it doesn't always mean "killing in the name of Allah".

Not always, but sometimes:

The “Reliance of the Traveler, (the Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)”, page 599, [9], is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page volume contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by “the great 13th century hadith scholar and jurisprudent”, Imam Nawawi, and others. This work was not written with a Western audience in mind. Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was precise, and accurate; one that taught true Islamic values. The following is a long quote on jihad:
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word “mujahada”, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
1) Fighting is prescribed for you (2:216)
2) Slay them wherever you find them (4:89)
3) Fight the idolaters utterly (9:36)

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:
“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah.”

And the hadith report by Muslim
“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Jihad is communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. And Allah Most High having said:
Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good.” 4:95

Jihad is also obligatory for everyone able to perform it, male or female, old or young when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims.

The Caliph makes war upon the Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax Jizya…in accordance with the word of Allah Most High:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden – who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” 9:29

The Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim ....”

from here.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Not always, but sometimes:

Yes it sometimes does. I guess the best English translation for the word "jihad" is "crusade". It could mean going out and killing in the name of religion, or it could mean striving for a common goal as a religious community.

 

[AxisMundi]

The trouble some don't bother to take into account is that all three Abrahamic scriptures are highly exclusionary, urging intolerance towards peoples of other faiths and none.

And especially the two younger Abrahamic Scriptures all but command the followers to go out and convert people by any means necessary.

 

[Badran]

I'm a very empirical person. I believe in empiricism because it works. I believe we can use empirical methods to look around us and learn about reality. So we can compare Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists as a way to learn something about Islam, Christianity, etc. We see that in Muslim countries, there is a tendency to repress women's rights, use violence against those who disagree (including other Muslims), riot over other people's free speech, kill women for exercising their human rights, mutilate girl children, blow up innocent civilians, spread anti-scientific superstition, etc. etc. Furthermore, when they do these things, they tell you in no uncertain terms why they do it--it's because of their religion. They believe it's their religious duty, and that's why they do it. In today's world, religion is often a real, serious problem.
In particular, I am very worried about the spread of Islam and its effect on the world's people. It's bad for Muslims and bad for non-Muslims. It spreads ignorance, barbarism, repression and violence. Wherever Muslims go, we see honor killings, subway bombings, and on and on. This is not speculative, and it's important for us to understand it and figure out how to combat. Islam, a specific, virulent form of Islam, is responsible. Until we understand that, we cannot effectively combat it.

Okay, first of all, let's separate between "Muslims" & "Islam". We already shown and every body agrees that the acts of some of it's adherents doesn't speak for religion. All these symptoms that applies to some Muslims, aren't because of Islam, it is because Most Muslims are from countries that aren't in good conditions in anyway. These are social problems, ignorant people using religion to justify their actions, it happened before and it will always happen.

Instead of going around with this faulty methods, review the religion itself. I can't believe you are still trying to show that this is a good method. You know it's not such a bad thing to come to an agreement with the opposite once in while, do it for a change.

One more thing, this thread was supposed to be about religion in general, so making it about Islam is not a nice thing of you to do, even if you were using it as an example.

Remember our thread on the poor Iranian lesbian? Every Muslim in the thread agrees that she should be punished. The only question was: how severely. Here's a person living her life, not hurting anyone, loving whom she loves, and to a man, Muslims think it's O.K. to punish her. Sorry, that's evil, and I'm going to fight it.

As i remember there was only two Muslims in that thread, me and Abu Rashid. Then, 301 came in to show that he agrees with everything Abu Rashid said. That doesn't come even close to say something on the subject, because even if all the Muslim members here think like that, that doesn't mean that all Muslims in the world think like that.